Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like the member for Parkes, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I have had the opportunity, both while in the chair and during the progress of the debate, to hear a great many very fine contributions—and I would like to put that on the record. All the contributors to the debate have genuinely—and in depth—considered the challenging issues facing any nation when it addresses matters of war. Such issues are amongst the most difficult any society has to struggle with, but even those in this debate with whom I profoundly disagree have, I believe, arrived at their views in a considered and very genuine manner.

The same is true of people in my own electorate who have contacted me on the subject. I am sure we have probably all experienced the differing views in our communities but I am very, very confident, from the conversations, letters and emails that I have had, that people are genuinely applying intellectual rigour, along with a well-intentioned heart, to what are some of the most difficult matters that can confront societies and communities. I do welcome the opportunity to make my own contribution to the debate.

I want to say at the outset that whilst I have listened to the argument as to why we should withdraw from Afghanistan, I do not agree with it. I firmly believe that we should remain alongside our allies to try to ensure that Afghanistan is able to escape from its long modern experience of war and its place as a safe haven for terrorism. I firmly believe that the majority of the people of Afghanistan, like the majority of the people of our nation, long for peace, and that they long for peace for their children. I believe that what we are undertaking there is a contribution towards achieving that for them.

Many people have outlined—and I want to put it on the record in my statement too—the circumstance in which we find ourselves in Afghanistan. I think it is important to challenge the view that is sometimes put that it is only a small group—the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia—fighting in Afghanistan. That is not the case. In this united effort of countries from around the world there are 44 other countries involved in this task, including Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Turkey, Spain and New Zealand. There is a combined coalition force and some 120,000 troops from 47 countries in total. We are not alongside only our traditional and historical allies of the United States and the United Kingdom in this conflict, as is sometimes portrayed.

I think it is also important to remember that in 2001 the United Nations sanctioned this military intervention. I am a strong believer in the historical role of the United Nations, which arose out of the terrible world wars of the previous century, and the principles it put in place. Those were principles that said we would take actions to avoid war at all cost but that, when we needed to, we would come together with a common purpose and take military action. Australia has had a tradition of participating within the United Nations from its very inception, and I take that very seriously in our assessment of our international actions and our commitment to those actions.

United Nations Security Council resolution 1386 was adopted at its meeting on 20 December 2001. Among other things it called on its member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force and authorised the member states participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate. This resolution has been reviewed by the UN Security Council on 10 occasions, and the resolution has been renewed on each occasion.

I believe Australia is either serious about the UN Charter, especially its obligations for member states to defend international peace and security, or not. The International Security Assistance Force, of which we have been a part since 2001, with varying levels of engagement, is fulfilling a UN Security Council resolution and this fact should not be forgotten nor downplayed. Although there has been to some extent domestic electoral pressure within countries that are acting in Afghanistan under this mandate to withdraw forces, many of the countries initially involved in the conflict remain with us even though it is nine long years later. That fact should also not be forgotten.

The challenge and focus at present is quite often about, ‘Where to now? Why are we still there? What is our task?’ From my perspective, as I prepared for this debate I concluded that Australia’s objectives remain consistent with our first involvement nine years ago. We act in concert with our allies to protect innocent citizens from murder by terrorist activities, and many people have outlined the history of those since those tragic events in 2001. We act to fulfil our obligations as a founding member state of the United Nations, and we act to fulfil our obligations under the ANZUS treaty to assist a longstanding ally—the United States. I reject the claim that Australia in this instance is, as critics suggest, simply subcontracting its foreign policy to the United States. Australia has always stood up for itself, and I do not accept that this occasion is any different. I would point out as an example that this government, the then opposition, opposed the Iraq war. I supported that position, primarily because the war was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council. We promised we would withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and this pledge was fulfilled.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of the task. There has been much evidence presented in many speeches of both the challenges and problems in Afghanistan and the achievements and progress. I believe both of those stories can be and are true. I believe that what has happened positively in some areas has not been repeated throughout all of Afghanistan. I understand the size of those challenges. I understand the history that some have outlined of attempts to have foreign forces in Afghanistan and the less than sterling success of some of those. I understand fully the difficulty of the task that we undertake. But I do not judge the commitment to a task by its difficulty. I continue to believe that what we are doing is worthwhile.

Afghanistan is a complex country and it is in a strategic position in Central Asia. Its population of 28 million is split amongst a tribal structure which is best described as Byzantine. It is complex. I was able to hear the member for Werriwa’s speech and he gave an extraordinarily fluid description of the complexities of that tribal structure. I think we all understand the challenges that that in itself creates when you are trying to deal with a country such as Afghanistan. It is poor. It is underdeveloped. It has a history of violence. UNICEF estimates that 80 per cent of females and 50 per cent of males have no access to education. Information and news is conveyed by village elders, and tribal meetings establish who has the authority to speak for the community. It is beset by three groups responsible for savage violence—the foreign Taliban based in Pakistan, the local Taliban and gangs of criminals.

I have, as you may have noticed, tried to steer clear of the use of ‘war’ in my speech. War, in our traditional sense, implies two or more sides opposed by armed forces of more or less equal capability. War also implies that one side or the other will win by deployment and cunning of its military strategists. I think our modern struggles are more reflected by the developing notion of counterinsurgency that is complex and multistranded, and I think that is what we are engaged in in Afghanistan. After nine years I think we are realising that this is not a conventional war. Most of the ISAF casualties have been through the deploying of improvised explosive devices. The 14 September 2010 quarterly report to the UN General Assembly by the UN Secretary-General indicated that the reporting period recorded a rise in the number of incidents using IEDs by 82 per cent compared to the same period in 2009.

Many colleagues have cautioned in their contributions that we need to reflect on how this conflict really ends. I believe the new international strategy starts to address that very critical question. It has four key parts: counterinsurgency measures to win the hearts and minds, transition to the Afghan government taking responsibility for its own security, negotiation with moderates to develop and establish a political settlement, and engagement with Pakistan.

In the few moments I have left in this debate, I want particularly to make a point about something that is close to my own heart and that has been reflected in many speeches. I profoundly believe that societies are transformed into free, functioning and democratic societies by education, at the end of the day. I think all of these other tasks are important and, as I have indicated in my speech, I believe that military action, including the training and raising of security forces in that country to do its own tasks, is important. But at the end of the day I believe—not surprisingly, as an educationalist—that education is what transforms society in ways that last. I am encouraged by the progress in Afghanistan along that line.

Infant mortality has decreased by 22 per cent since 2002. Where we just say a statistic and do not really understand the reality of this sort of infant mortality, this is a really difficult issue for many, many families and the suffering is significant. Getting more children to survive past five is an aim of many local community organisations in developing countries, and no more so than here. The Prime Minister outlined in her speech, and many others have also made the point, that primary school enrolments have increased from one million in 2001—and, as many have indicated, one million boys only at that time because girls were not entitled to an education—to nearly six million today. Two million of that six million are girls. None of them would have had an opportunity to go to school previously. And I know that an educated girl—as I am sure the opposition whip will agree—can be a powerful force for transition in societies and communities.

The UN Secretary-General’s report I mentioned earlier also indicated that a total of 97,145 Afghan refugees have voluntarily returned, with UNHCR assistance, so far in 2010. That includes 91,583 from Pakistan and 5,515 from Iran. If we want people displaced around the world from Afghanistan to voluntarily return to their homeland, we have to give them hope, and part of that hope is education. We should also not underestimate how force protection is important for aid workers and other civilians in Afghanistan. The UN Secretary-General made the point that attacks against aid workers continued and they represented a worrisome trend impeding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. I think the work that our aid workers do is often underrecognised. I would like to pay tribute in this speech to the aid workers in Afghanistan, but I also believe that they need security to go about their task.

In conclusion, I believe that Australian ADF personnel—as has been so eloquently expressed in this House, including by the opposition whip, whose speech I heard, and by the member for Parkes—have much to be proud of. And those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice leave behind families who will only have pride in the efforts that they have put in on behalf of this nation. They are fulfilling an important obligation under the UN and the ANZUS treaty. While we need to constantly examine the nature of our role, and our performance of it, I continue to believe in the purpose of that task.

See this speech in context